Local Government

Summary

Mrs C complained that, following a flood caused by a burst pipe in an upstairs owner-occupied property, the council delayed in moving her and her family to suitable alternative emergency accommodation within a reasonable timeframe. She was also unhappy that a member of staff had ended a phone call, accusing her and her husband of using inappropriate language. She was also dissatisfied when the council told her that her refusal to lift the laminate flooring in her home had caused the drying process to take substantially longer and resulted in additional damage.

We considered the points she had raised, and found that the council had offered suitable wheelchair-accessible temporary bed and breakfast accommodation on the day of the flood. We noted that the council did not consider that moving house was necessary but had continued to offer temporary bed and breakfast accommodation which Mrs C and her husband refused as being unsuitable, in part because the family pet could not be accommodated. We also noted that Mrs C had initially refused (partly on the basis of advice from their insurers) to agree to the laminate flooring being lifted, and that the council's surveyors were of the view that the delay in lifting the laminate flooring had caused water to filter into the walls and cause additional damage. The council's policy on laminate flooring places responsibility for the lifting and replacement of laminate flooring with the tenant. Finally, although we were unable to determine exactly what was said in the phone call when Mrs C and her husband were accused of using inappropriate language, we did review the council's unacceptable actions policy which gives staff the authority to end calls where they consider the language being used is not appropriate.

As we did not find evidence of administrative failure in the way the council dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Mr A) that the council had failed to adequately consider Mr A's request for a disabled person's parking bay. We found that the council had adequately considered Mr A's application and had considered both his own and his wife's medical circumstances. The decision to refuse the application because a disabled person's parking bay had already been installed at the rear of Mr A's property was a decision that the council were entitled to take. In view of this, we did not uphold the complaint.

That said, Mr C also complained about how Mr A had been notified of the decision on his application. The council's process for applications for a disabled person's parking bay clearly states that the council should advise the applicant in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that the applicant does not meet the criteria. The council had referred Mr A's application to their roads service for consideration, but they had failed to notify Mr A of this in writing in line with their process. The council had then phoned Mr A to tell him that they had refused his application, but there was subsequently some confusion for both Mr A and the council about whether a decision had in fact been made. In view of this, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• take steps to ensure that applicants for a disabled person's bay are notified in writing that either the request has been forwarded to the roads service for consideration or that they do not meet the criteria;
• consider whether the procedure should be amended to state that applicants should be notified of the final decision in writing; and
• issue a written apology to Mr A.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council failed to assess a planning application for a house on neighbouring land correctly and consistently with previous decisions taken, and that they delayed in making relevant drawings available on their online planning portal. We also investigated Mr C's complaint that he was not given an adequate opportunity to provide further information in support of his complaint under the council's complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that there were some areas where Mr C's complaint about the assessment of the planning application were justified, particularly in relation to the accuracy of the planning officer's report to committee. However, there was no evidence of fault in the way the planning application was handled, and this was consistent with previous decisions about the site. We also concluded that the council's explanation about timescales for uploading information to their portal was reasonable, and we did not support Mr C's complaint of delay.

When we investigated how the council had handled Mr C's complaint, we found that they had complied with their procedure. They had made it clear to him that there was an approaching deadline, and we considered it would have been reasonable for Mr C to contact the council to seek more time to provide information, if necessary.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of Ms A that a warning letter she received from the council in October about her alleged behaviour was the first such notification she received. Ms A said that although she requested a meeting to discuss the situation, she was not given the opportunity to provide her side of the story. Ms C said that Ms A was being victimised and ignored.

We found that there was evidence that Ms A had been warned on occasions before October, and she had referred to this correspondence in her own letters. Ms A had also been given details of the complaints made against her, and been invited to call or meet to discuss them. She did not do so. We found no evidence to suggest that the council had failed to act in accordance with their anti-social behaviour policy, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a council tenant, told us the council were unreasonably imposing a weekly charge for a shower. There was a shower in the flat when she moved in. Ms C said that when she signed the tenancy she assumed that the weekly shower charge was just a normal rent charge. When she asked the council about it she was told the shower could not be removed and replaced with a bath. Ms C felt she had paid unnecessarily for a basic shower which she could have had installed herself for a much lower cost.

We found the council's shower installation programme was designed to offer choice to tenants, at no cost to the council. Councils have a limited budget to spend and must decide how to use their resources carefully. It was the council's policy to impose a weekly charge for the shower installed in Ms C's home. The council provided details of the calculations, which covered a 30-year period, on which the shower charge was based.

We found that Ms C exercised choice in taking the tenancy on and that the council made her aware that there was a weekly charge for the shower which was additional to the rent. We did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way that the council dealt with various planning applications concerned with drilling and the exploration and development of coal bed methane from early 2007 until 2009, when an application was submitted for the formation of a gas compressor station. These applications were all approved subject to conditions. Then, from 2011 until 2013, further applications were made to vary the timescales of the permissions that had been granted earlier.

Mrs C complained that the council should not have considered the applications on an individual basis and that this should have been considered to be a major development. She also believed that planning officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the matters nor did they ensure appropriate public consultation. In reply, the council said that due process had been followed throughout.

We took independent advice from our planning adviser. Our investigation found that the council had considered the applications in terms of the appropriate planning legislation. Similarly, they followed legislation when varying the timescales applying. There was no evidence to suggest that the developments constituted a major development or that officers were not sufficiently expert to deal with the applications. All the planning applications had been publicly advertised and requirements for neighbour notification fulfilled.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C did not receive a meaningful response from the council until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained to the council about the provision of community care for one of her clients. As Ms C had not received a final response to her complaint, just over eight months after writing to the council, she complained to us about the delay.

We found that Ms C's complaint was acknowledged the day it was received by the council, but she did not receive a meaningful response until more than 11 weeks had passed. This was after Ms C had contacted the council twice to enquire about their response. In the council's initial response, they incorrectly told Ms C that legal advice was being sought in relation to her complaint. However, this was not requested until nine months later (during the time that we were investigating the complaint). It was clear to us, and it was accepted by the council, that there was an unreasonable delay in dealing with Ms C. We upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Ms C for the unreasonable delay in dealing with her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with a response to her complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mr A about the development of a property near to Mr A's house. During the building works, the council was alerted to the possibility that the property was not being built in accordance with the planning permission. It was later established that the property was not built in accordance with the planning permission, and the council issued a section 33A notice (a form of enforcement action which requires a new planning application to be submitted for consideration).

Mr C complained that the council had not taken action during construction when they were first made aware of the breach. Mr C also complained that the council had then not taken reasonable enforcement action once the breach was established.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers. They concluded that it was reasonable of the council not to take any action during construction until they had established whether or not a breach had occurred. The adviser was also satisfied that the council had the discretion to choose whether to take enforcement action (which they did) and what form that it should take. Although the council did not intend to take any further enforcement action, this was a discretionary decision for the council to make. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints.